Gibralter, LLC v. DMS Flowers, LLC

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 26, 2024
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00174
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 GIBRALTER, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00174-CDB

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED 13 v. FOR PLAINTIFFS’ FAILURE TO

PROSECUTE THIS ACTION AND TO 14 DMS FLOWERS, LLC., et al., COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDERS

15 Defendants. ORDER CONTINUING THE MANDATORY

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 16

FIVE-DAY DEADLINE 17 18 19 Plaintiffs Gibralter, LLC and Divinely, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) commenced this action with the 20 filing of a complaint against Defendants DMS Flowers, LLC, Maria Pantoja, Samantha Andrade, 21 and Daniel Andrade (“Defendants”) on February 6, 2024. (ECF No. 1). The following day, the 22 Clerk of the Court issued summonses and the Court entered an Order setting a mandatory 23 scheduling conference for May 2, 2024 (the “Order”). (ECF Nos. 2, 3). The Order directed 24 Plaintiff to “diligently pursue service of summons and complaint” and “promptly file proofs of 25 service.” The Order further advised Plaintiffs that failure to diligently prosecute this action “may 26 result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of unserved defendants.” To date, 27 Plaintiffs have not filed proofs of service and no Defendant has appeared in the action, requiring 28 the Court to reset the mandatory scheduling conference. Plaintiffs also have violated their 1 || obligation under the Order to file a joint scheduling report at least one week in advance of the 2 || mandatory scheduling conference. (ECF No. 3 at 2). 3 Local Rule 110 provides that “[flailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 4 || Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 5 || sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to 6 || control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 7 || including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 8 |} 2000). 9 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within five (5) days of entry of 10 || this order, Plaintiffs SHALL show cause in writing why sanctions should not be imposed for 11 || their failure to prosecute this action, to serve the summonses and complaint in a timely manner, 12 || and to comply with the Court’s orders concerning the mandatory scheduling conference. 13 || Alternatively, by that same deadline, Plaintiffs may file proofs of service demonstrating the 14 || summonses and complaint have been served on all Defendants. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the mandatory scheduling conference previously set 16 || for May 2, 2024, is CONTINUED to June 5, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. 17 Any failure by Plaintiffs to timely respond to this Order to Show Cause may result in the 18 || imposition of sanctions, including financial sanctions and a recommendation to dismiss this 19 || action. 20 || IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ April 26, 2024 | hr 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28